Ratifying The Constitution Dbq Essay

People had many different opinions on the ratification of the Constitution. There were Federalists and Anti-Federalists that debated on many topics of the Constitution. The main reasons were: what type of government the United States of America should have, the people controlling our government, and some of the powers they should have. The Federalists were the ones who wanted change. They wanted to make changes to the government that was originally proposed. The Federalists wanted the government to protect the people, but not abuse their powers. They wanted to have the powers divided between the national and the state governments. The Constitution also stated that the government

The Constitution had changes the United States greatly. The document, written in 1788, was a powerful representation of the government back then, and amazingly, it’s still in play today. During the 1700’s, the first political parties formed over disagreements in the government and the constitution. The two parties were the Federalists and Antifederalists. Federalists made up the people who felt that the stronger government was best for the country and supported the Constitution. The federalists had felt as if different “fiscal and monetary policies” were a weakness in the national economy. Also, the Federalists supported banking("Anti-Federalist vs Federalist"). Federalists wanted to fight for stronger governments, managing the country’s debt

Establishing an effective system of government has proven to be an obstacle for centuries. Fortunately, the Founding Father recognized the common flaws of governments, as did many common men in the colonies. Consequently, the ratification of the constitution was vital for a healthy governmental system, though it did bring about much debate and persuasion. There were two main positions which people took during the ratification, those being the Anti-Federalist and the Federalist. The Anti-Federalist were a diverse assembly involving prominent men such as George Mason and Patrick Henry, and also the most unlikely of individuals, those being Farmers and shopkeepers. The chief complaint about the Constitution was that it confiscated the power from the sates, thereby robbing the people of their power. Oppositely, the Federalist believed in removing some control from the states and imparting that power to the national government, thus making America partially national. Throughout this debate, many letters were shared between the two sides, and eventually, it led to the federalist winning over the colonies.

The Constitutional Convention of 1787 marked the evolution from the Articles of Confederation to the U.S. Constitution. The ratification argument led to disagreements between the Federalists, who wanted to approve the Constitution, and Anti-Federalists, who opposed the document. The latter believed that the new system forced by the Constitution failed to protect the individual rights of citizens and threatened liberties.

In 1787, the Constitutional Convention was held in Philadelphia in hopes of revising the Articles of Confederation before the new, established country would become unsustainable. The Articles of Confederation had failed the country as the central government was not strong enough to uphold the country and protect the people’s rights. They were then abandoned and the Founding Fathers began to draft a new government system, what we now know as the US Constitution. At the time the dilemma was, should the Constitution be ratified? The Constitution should be ratified considering that it averts abuse of power, is effective in regulation, and is in the interest of the people.

Anti-Federalism, an 18th century political movement led primarily by Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams, opposed the ratification of the new United States Constitution for multiple reasons. [B] The new U.S. Constitution was written by a group of delegates selected for the 1787 Constitutional Convention which took place in Philadelphia. A chief reason Anti-Federalists were highly concerned with this document was the amount of power it would give the federal government. They worried that the implementation of a strong centralized government could only be possible at the expense of individual states rights and freedoms. Anti-Federalists were also concerned that smaller states, who had previously held as much weight in national affairs as larger states, may be ignored or trampled upon in regards to passing interstate laws and amending federal documents. Another concern of the Anti-Federalists was the absence of a Bill of Rights, a specific list of personal rights possessed by American citizens, in the Constitution. They feared that without this bill of stated rights, there would be no guarantee that the American government, under the Constitution, would not pass tyrannical laws resembling those implemented by the British just prior to the American Revolution. [A]

During the Revolutionary War, colonists believed that they needed a sense of unified government, so this led to the creation of the Articles of Confederation, the first written constitution of the United States (history.com). Although the Articles of Confederation had its strengths, such as allowing the central government to create treaties and maintain military, it had many weaknesses, such as preventing the central government to levy taxes and regulate trade. It also could not be changed unless there was a unanimous decision and it lacked a stable currency. Since the creation of the Articles of Confederation had many issues and weaknesses, the Continental Congress rewrote the Articles into what is now known as the U.S Constitution. The Constitution established a national government, guaranteed basic rights for the colonists and revised almost everything that was wrong in the original Articles, such as the sovereignty that resided primarily in the states and the lack of power from the national government. The Constitution was later ratified by all 13 states in May 1790, with the support of the Federalist Party. [A] Federalists believed in the commitment to a strong national government and in the practice of a separation of powers. However, Anti-Federalists had the opposite view which was the opposition of a strong national government, the support for small landowners, and the representation of rights of the people. Anti-Federalists believed that a strong national government

With a failing, and week Articles of Confederation loosely uniting the state, delegates from each states set out to revise the Articles of Confederation. Instead, they made an extremely polarizing Constitution, which was debated on and revised in the years to come. In these debates were parties, with two entirely different political ideologies and philosophies. The Federalists believed that they should ratify the Constitution now, and they would amend the Constitution later. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists believed that the Constitution shouldn’t be ratified, because it didn't guarantee the citizen’s rights and gave too much power to the government.

In the late 1700’s a debate broke out about the Constitution and its ratification. The debate was between two groups of Americans, Federalists, who supported the ratification, and Anti-Federalists, who opposed it. Federalists supported the constitution’s ratification because they wanted a strong government to rely on, however, Anti-Federalists opposed the constitution because they wanted more individual power and a weaker central government. Anti-Federalists were Americans who opposed the Constitution and its ratification for various reasons including their fear of individual rights being lost.

The ratification of the Constitution was a crucial and momentous turning point in the history of American government. Although this renowned document created much more structure within the national government than it did under the Articles of Confederation, North Carolina was extremely against the ratification of the Constitution. With a strong majority of Anti-Federalist delegates during the debate throughout the ratification convention, North Carolina was called into session twice, in Hillsborough and Fayetteville, where the Anti-Federalists fought diligently for an explicit Bill of Rights to protect individual rights and maintain state economic stability, while the Federalists attempted to assuage the Anti-Federalists’ refusal to accept

Whether or not to ratify the Constitution was one of the greatest controversies in American history. This constitution set the framework for a new stronger government unlike the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation was known as America’s first ‘weak’ government. These Articles were passed to provide authority to the Continental Congress on a legal basis. Even though, they had already been exercising this power, they wanted something so they wouldn’t be questioned when regulating trade and creating taxes.

The Federalists wanted to ratify the constitutional while the Federalists did not. A big argument was whether to add the bill of rights. Many argued that the Constitution only stood to limit the government and the people, whereas the Anti-Federalists claimed that the constitution without the Bill of Rights would cause oppression. Delegates from both sides agreed that the Bill of Rights would implemented as the first 10 amendments of the Constitution. But that wasn't the end, more compromises had to be done. Many things arose during the drafting of the constitution such as the proposal of a bicameral legislation in which one would include representation by size and the other would reflect the important of state sovereignty. The Framers saw the errors and limitation of the Articles of Confederation and worked efficiently to compromise for the wellbeing of

The major reason why Anti-federalists opposed the ratification of the new constitution was because they feared that it gave too much power to the national government. In an article called ‘Ratifying the constitution- Anti-federalists’ it states, “Having just succeeded in rejecting what they saw as the tyranny of British power, such threats were seen as a very real part of political life. To Anti-federalists the proposed Constitution threatened to lead

Writing the constitution was a very challenging and lengthy process. When state legislators received the Constitution for their formal approval, not everybody was hoping to sign it. Americans split into two separate groups. The groups consisted of those who supported the Constitution and those who felt other changes needed to be dealt with first. Those who supported the Constitution were known and Federalists and those who argued against it were known as anti-federalists. Although anti-federalists may have had some good arguments against ratifying the constitution, a stronger central government than what the Articles of Confederation provided was needed and supporting the constitution was good way to satisfy that need.

The real dilemma the Anti-Federalists had with the constitution, when the constitution was signed it did not contain a Bill of Rights to protect citizen’s rights. The Anti- Federalist feared a national government would strip citizens of their individual rights. The Anti-Federalists did not want a repeat of the Revolutionary War.